Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Blueriq vs IBM BPM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 11, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Blueriq
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
34th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM BPM
Ranking in Business Process Management (BPM)
6th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Application Infrastructure (10th), Process Automation (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Business Process Management (BPM) category, the mindshare of Blueriq is 1.2%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM BPM is 4.3%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Business Process Management (BPM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM BPM4.3%
Blueriq1.2%
Other94.5%
Business Process Management (BPM)
 

Featured Reviews

ChrisBiemans - PeerSpot reviewer
Business Consultant at Ziggo Services B.V.
Stable platform with valuable case management capabilities
We use Everest Blueriq for a food safety organization, that revolves around automating and managing complex processes critical to ensuring food safety and compliance. It involves monitoring containers for pests and diseases before allowing entry into the EU. The platform plays a vital role in…
Ateeq Rehman - PeerSpot reviewer
Unit Head System Implementor at Allied Bank Limited
Automation platforms streamline processes and offer flexibility, but AI integration and version upgrades pose challenges
In the technology world, there is always room for improvement. Technologies evolve day by day, especially with the emergence of artificial intelligence and generative AI models. Although IBM BPM is a substantial product, adopting and integrating new technologies quickly is not easy due to the migration and upgrade paths involved. Every time new versions are released, we face business and production challenges that make rapid adoption challenging. The main concern bothering me today regarding IBM BPM is the integration of AI components.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The biggest benefit of using the product is identifying the issues, enabling a more flexible working method."
"The system integration layer is valuable because this enables an organization to create a single point where all the key organizational master data is held in different IT applications across different functions, that can be accessed and updated."
"IBM's deployment box is one huge black box. We can create all the services with our own code or without a codebase, however, we have a huge amount of space with practically no limitation."
"IBM BPM and Automation Anywhere working together automate manual tasks with a reduction in FTEs, creating about a 30% reduction in FTEs by automating processes."
"This solution is very stable."
"Overall, I'm satisfied with the product. If you compare it with other products, it's probably not as easygoing or as simple to implement as the rest. But after you get used to it, it works. It has a lot of capabilities and potential, but the people, who come from different technologies, have some difficulty getting used to the way of working with IBM products."
"For me, the most important feature is the easy-to-use business process dashboard. It's simple to orchestrate business processes, and the interface is clean and intuitive. Once your workflow is designed on paper, it's easy for the business process manager to implement and follow it. Another IBM product that was good in the past is the IBM Case Manager. I haven't used it for three or four years, so I'm unsure if it's still available, but it was quite effective."
"Initially, the process architecture studio was very helpful and it was compliant with BPMN standards."
"We have automated processes with IBM BPM and DocuSign. Its valuable features include low-code, timer, etc. It makes it simple to implement the products. We generate reports using the solution."
 

Cons

"The platform's initial setup process could be better."
"It is not user-friendly."
"The constant switch between Eclipse and its web versions can be annoying and confusing."
"We would appreciate more user-friendly definitions of processes with a more user-friendly interface for documenting processes."
"We would like better performance and more ​visibility on each step of the tool.​"
"One of the things that we are looking at is cognitive learning. IBM has another product called IBM RPA, I think, which is doing some of that stuff. We would like to see more of that with respect to cognitive learning and AI put back into the process engine to help."
"From the testing perspective and minor enhancements perspective, customization is something that is a little tedious as compared to new tools. In addition, various open-source tools that are available are not working with IBM BPM."
"The pricing is a little bit high. It's gone up in cost."
"You must have good experience to work with it. It is not that easy. Its installation is complex, especially in the new version for business automation, and it could be improved. It has a safety application embedded inside it, and you need to do a lot of configuration to install it. I have been working for two days to resolve an issue."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I rate the tool's pricing a seven out of ten."
"Our customers do see ROI. They'll identify some particularly painful or uncoordinated processes to start with, then build out from there, picking off low hanging fruit."
"The solution is highly-priced."
"Its price is on the higher side, and it can be improved. Its licensing is on a yearly basis. There are no additional costs."
"Licensing is managed by the client, but we know it is yearly. Camunda is relatively cheaper. There is not much difference in pricing of IBM and PEGA. For large licensing, there are discounts as well."
"Due to its extensive features and capabilities, the product pricing is more aligned with medium—to large enterprises."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing a ten."
"Price wise, IBM BPM is cheaper than other similar solutions and has excellent pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Business Process Management (BPM) solutions are best for your needs.
884,076 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
22%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business30
Midsize Enterprise19
Large Enterprise72
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Which is better, IBM BPM or IBM Business Automation Workflow?
We researched both IBM solutions and in the end, we chose Business Automation Workflow. IBM BPM has a good user interface and the BPM coach is a helpful tool. The API is very useful in providing en...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM BPM?
Once it is installed, maintaining it is not a big issue.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Blueriq, Aquima
WebSphere Lombardi Edition, IBM Business Process Manager, IBM WebSphere Process Server
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Abn Amro, Aegon, duo, City of Tilburg
Barclays, EmeriCon, Banca Popolare di Milano, CST Consulting, KeyBank, KPMG, Prolifics, Sandhata Technologies Ltd., State of Alaska, Humana S.A., Saperion, esciris, Banco Espirito Santo
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, Automation Anywhere, Pega and others in Business Process Management (BPM). Updated: February 2026.
884,076 professionals have used our research since 2012.